Making two unconnected issues part of the same debate is a classic response to "women’s issues". The government can then claim "We are taking care of one category of poor women so we can’t afford the other". The tendency to connect two separate issues, both about women, illustrates a much deeper political sexism than the legitimate anger about sexist tweets and commentaries.

This is why the World Bank is so valued by the US government and Wall Street: because it is instrumental to expanding the sphere of Western capitalism, a role not dissimilar to that which colonialism once played for Europe. This may be a good way to overcome flagging corporate profits and to stop stagflation at home, but it does not countas a serious strategy for global poverty reduction.

We have to face up to the fact that the World Bank will never be an effective tool in the fight against poverty without fundamental changes in its power structure.

So far from pistols, chop-socky or irresistible sexual magnetism, a normal SIS officer's primary tools for motivating foreigners to do what he wants are bribery, bullshit and in certain circumstances blackmail. The only Bond-like quality a normal SIS officer will be required to show is the ability to drink heavily and remain functional, as any diplomat must on the embassy cocktail circuit.